I woke up today thinking about Modifoxes. I know I've been absent for awhile, and I know I'm pretty much no longer active in this shop. But that doesn't mean I don't want to help it. I want to be more active, but a few things just make me feel like spending another day tagging RPs or another day putting off my journal, and then a day becomes another day and then another day becomes three days and then a week and etc etc.
I've been looking around a little in other shops and noticed something. The lifemate ordeal. You know what I noticed that I really like? No RPs have to be done to lifemate foxes.
This thing is huge to me and is probably one of the reasons I avoid Modifoxes these days. I like couples. I like making couples. I don't like that I have to make a certain length RP to lifemate a couple. Sometimes I just don't have a muse to make a 4 page RP with a fox, but I know I've found their soulmate. That makes me write some horribly done RP with barely any length to it because I'm just thinking: "I need to get this done for them to be mated properly but I have no muse for this."
I agree RPing should bring benefits. I agree that maybe a certain length of pages should be what causes the benefits, too. It prevents hoarders from lifemating every few seconds for more BCRs. But I think those who aren' as into RPing should have the choice to make smaller RPs and lifemate, or just lifemate off the bat. I know several friends that have walked away from the shop or told me that they loved the design but just weren't big RPers and wouldn't be interested in it because of the lifemate rule.
So my proposal is that we remove the limit on RP pages we need to make for a couple. Remove the RP necessity. Instead, have it so we can lifemate adults (only adults, too), but this leaves us at the minium amount of BCRs a couple can get. Normal x Normal = 4. Daeva x Daeva = 2, etc etc. THEN, RPed couples could get the boosted benefit of 6 for normals, 4 for winged, etc etc.
This shop doesn't do Metas. It doesn't focus on RP much. It never has. It likes when people RP, but I feel like forcing people to RP to lifemate isn't cutting it. I know from experience sometimes I just want to write a shorter RP, and not every muse will get that well-written 4 pages or 6 pages that they need. Also, after Inara left and handed me a BUNCH of other halves to other couples I just don't have the energy to do all the RPs for them, but I know I love the couples and want them bonded forever.
Next suggestion is about dead threads.
I liked the idea at first, but it's become a problem. I've been waiting for some RPs to be unlocked for many months now. Many. I've asked twice for them to be re-opened, and I've seen others be re-opened when the thread was owned by a staff and a regular. But the other requests aren't touched, or at least mine aren't, and I know a few people who have been waiting for many months for theirs to be re-opened.
This is problematic. Sometimes we go off because of school. I vanished primarily because I am going to college and was having a depression problem. I still am having both issues. When I came back briefly I noticed RPs were dead, and I asked for them to be re-opened. Four months later, no response. Six months later, still no response. It's frustrating. I've mentioned it in-thread before, nothing was done.
So, I'd like to offer a solution. It takes extra work, but it may prevent frustration on both sides. Maybe instead the owners are PMed and asked whether or not they are done with the thread or have no muse with it. If both owners say they've given up or even ONE does, then the thread is closed.
That's really all I can say with a sprained wrist. I'm already dying in pain from this. I'd appreciate a response for this. I know I probably sound like a mega-b***h, but keep in mind I stayed up for two days straight and JUST woke up from finally sleeping last night at 1 am. So I'm cranky and writing is hard. I'm sorry if this comes off hostile, because I'm not angry or blaming anyone. I'm just frustrated. I love this shop despite how absent I've been, and there's so many ideas I have on how to help it keep going. A lot. But these two ideas were something that I felt needed to be adressed.
I love you guys, I really do. I'd really like someone to respond to this and read it. Have a good day.
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:16 pm
You asked for two cents so I'll give it dear. I noticed that what your asking about lifemates is like how its set up in TLN. am I right? depending on how its added into modis i think it could work
Yes, like TLN. I noticed also OTHER shops that do it and it's generally received well. It helps both types of people. People can not RP and yet still have their foxes in love, and those who DO RP can get benefits.
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:44 pm
I also agree with the whole lifemating thing, while I know we are a rp based shop and you guys want to encourage the whole rp process I think it should definitely be reduced maybe a word count or something.
Because a lot of the time we do lots of stuff over Skype, and if we can use it as as a log that would count for the word count I think it would also help. I know we can use skype towards rp requirements but often its tedious to turn it into individualized posts just to get it to the page length.
Maybe non of those ideas will work because some just have their own wavelength of rping. However I know that we definitely need to bring in more people and while we're having more events we're also loosing a lot of potential customers to the rp problem. Maybe try it out different things as a test run and see what works or not for the shop.
However I definitely know the frustration of getting to that length. I have a lot of couples with Zanshin that we know that we want to rp them and others are even really interested in the couple but Zanshin is very busy so it takes them forever to get to the page length and mate them. However we've talked them over we've skyped them or rped them in thread and knowing each other we already know that their going to mate.
I have to agree. A word count would be awesome to make them lifemated instead of the 4-6 pages. I am in the same boat of I love the matches, but my muse for that fox is just not kicking into gear
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:51 pm
The only thing about the word count is that it worries me. It still makes people have to do RP a certain way. It also means staff will need to check to make sure the words are the number they need to be, and since we have problems with opening dead threads already..... I worry it won't be done for a long time.
But it's a good idea, and also adds to the ideas so far. I agree a test run would be lovely, and I'm glad everyone so far seems to agree with things.
I know the shop has always done this rule, but sometimes things need to change and the B/C itself has changed. I want more people in this shop. I want us to feel more active, as well. It'd be lovely if these changes encouraged those who RP differently to feel more welcomed and accepted, and maybe stay. I know the 4 pages used to work, but it's just changed? I know personally I'm burned out. I can't do it much longer, but I'm trying.
NymiiNym
Shy Wife
Offline
~Spazzy_the_Wolfie~ Crew
Offline
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:44 pm
I'm on my phone right now and typing up a bunch of things is a liiiittle tricky, so I'm just gonna hit up one of your topics, lifemates!
lifemating requirements: As far as this goes, we've had some staff meetings in the past where we've talked about rps possibly being word count based. [Before any peeps start asking about the actual word count number/the requirements we were discussing/numbers we were considering/etc.: I can't remember any of it off the top of my head and I don't have access to my computer at the moment. ; u;] Your proposal of non-rp'd lifemates receiving the minimum amount of BCRs was also a thing that we talked about during the meetings.
skype/aim/etc. logs counting towards lifemate rps: Staff have also talked about this during the meetings! We've only talked about the subject once[?] though, so nothing was decided on. However, we do know that a lot of you rp through outside messengers i definitely do, so the subject will probably be brought up again.
I'm sure we're going to discuss all of this more in our future staff meetings before deciding on anything. We'll update you guys on that when we can, especially if we end up wanting to do a test run for anything. The staffers are tackling a lot of subjects behind the scenes [word count for rps, tribes, mods, breedings, and a buuuunch of other things] so it might take a little while before you guys hear news about certain things. o: i'm trying really hard not to reveal too much and answer you guys at the same time aaa
TL;DR: staff have/will continue to go over lifemating requirements in future meetings! <3
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:11 pm
I think Spazzy covered the RP points pretty well. Once we've come to a decision, we'll be sure to let you know!
On the topic of closed threads: it's wholly my fault that those threads haven't been re-opened, and I'm sorry. I was busy last semester with my thesis, and lost track of which threads had already been reopened, and which ones still needed it. However, once I was finished with my thesis, I should have made a better attempt at sorting through the thread.
If you (any of you, not just Yush) have an RP that's been sitting in the re-open thread for a while, feel free to PM me the links, and I'll re-open them ASAP.
I'll post this over in the main thread as well, so everyone can see it.
Anrea Crew
Kawaii Sage
Offline
DemonBoyWonderr
Omnipresent Codger
Offline
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:54 am
My two cents on related topics for when the staffers talk about lifemate/breeding RP requirements next [since I don't know for sure that this has been considered, figured I'd throw it in here]:
Penny #1: I do believe that lifemating should have some sort of RP requirement, but perhaps less strict. I think it would be great to somehow incorporate Skype/AIM/in thread RP into the lifemating requirement, and perhaps even lessen the existing requirements a bit for those who aren't fans of roleplay or have no time for a lot of it. If there isn't an RP requirement at all, I fear all we'll see are some aesthetically pleasing couples that will make aesthetically pleasing babies. And that's half of the reason we have crack breedings [the other half being out-of-matelock pregnancies].
However, I don't really have a coherent suggestion on how to do any of this in reality, so I'll just skip ahead to a situation that will apply if penny number one is useful to staffers.
Penny #2: [I think that some people may not be at all supportive of this idea, because it sounds kind of strict] perhaps every lifemated couple can be entitled to win one breeding of, say four BCRs [for normal foxes], but in order to have another batch of kids, they would need to be RPed in the standard, in-Guild fashion, and the length of that RP, 2/4/6 pages would win them that many BCRs, given that they win the breeding raffle again.
Personally, off the top of my head, I've had three couples win two breedings each, simply because I had no other lifemated couples to enter and I'm perfectly content with receiving the minimum 2/4 babies at a time. And then I felt bad about it and stopped. I am fairly positive I haven't used up both breeding slots in a lifemating breeding for a while because in my head, the priority is couples who have been trying for months/years/howdoyoumeasure... and still haven't successfully won a breeding raffle. And then the second priority could be couples who earned more children through roleplay.
This way, if the rules for lifemating are slightly less strict, then people who aren't huge fans of roleplaying can still lifemate their foxes and get at least some children out of the couple. Meanwhile, people who love a certain couple more than any others in existence will be able to extend that family without having to worry about focusing on tons of other roleplays that they just want to get over with for the sake of lifemating.
Okay, so I know this was mostly about lifemating requirements, and my suggestion is more about breedings but they kind of completely go hand in hand. If a slightly less RP-intensive way of lifemating is figured out, this could be a good way to actually still keep roleplaying alive in Modifoxes without making it seem like a chore to those who have too many roleplays open at once.
So, I hope all of that made sense. And was relevant. And was good. Bedtime...
Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:00 pm
Gonna toss my opinion in the pot as well.
First the thing about dead roleplays. I already made a thread about my thoughts on the subject, but no one responded in there. Here's what I wrote:
This is just a random thought, thought I'd bring it forward to see what others thought.
I was thinking that instead of putting roleplays that have sat dead for a couple months in the Closed Theads, it should only be things like:
- Finished roleplays - Dead ones that all involved parties want to drop and are marked for the Closed Threads
My reasoning behind the thought is sometimes a muse dies and can leave a roleplay to fallow for months. Then a muse can just spring up out of nowhere, but now you can't reply cause your roleplay is locked and you have to wait for it to be unlocked. This can take time, cause Rea has a life outside Gaia and might not see the request for awhile. By then your muse could have died, which puts you back in the same position.
It could be argued that you could save the reply somewhere else when your muse hits and post it when the roleplay opens agan. I say there's always the chance you could lose it through human or computer error of some kind (cause those happen at the worst moments!) but I admit to the odds being long, and that this could be an acceptable solution for most cases.
I'm also not suggesting everything suddenly be pulled from the Closed Threads, cause some of those roleplays are well and truly dead. Just that whatever gets pulled out stays out until marked to go back in, if my suggestion is met with interest.
I've also had it argued that all those dead roleplays would clutter up the thread. My arguement is, not necessarily. All the active ones jump to the front, and would push the dead ones to the back and out of the way. Most people stay fairly well up-to-date on their roleplays, and only those doing a "just in case" sweep would have to travel back any true length. If there's still the worry of clutter you could say that anything that's been dead for, oh, maybe a year gets tossed in the Closed Threads.
If staff find the idea interesting, but still prefer the current system, might I suggest upping the time limit for what qualifies as a dead roleplay? Six months, perhaps, or three months if six seems too long, instead of just one?
Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestion : )
Next the subject of lifemating, and looking at it from a status claim prospective I'm in agreement with Yush's thoughts. Here's why.
There are many couplings or plotted couplings I have that have been roleplayed through IM, and for some reason or another that roleplay cannot be submitted in a way that would make it official. For example: - The roleplay was done in an anthro style with surroundings/activites key to the roleplay that cannot be adapted to fox form. - The roleplay was too dark to be used officially. I know that Yush and myself occasionally like to plot out some twisted stuff, but we keep it as private backstory meant only for ourselves. - The entirety of a couple's roleplay was done in a series of minis that had definite beginnings and endings but were too short themselves to meet official standards if moved to the guild, nor could they somehow be melded into a cohesive whole.
Bonds are formed during these roleplays that both myself and the other owner feel, but until we can find the time and muse to make an official story for them they have to stay unofficially "lifemated". There are also times when I prefer making a detailed backstory to roleplaying, which I feel is more a summary of a whole than a specific of a single day, and thus in my mind is just as valid a means for creating a bond as roleplay.
In summary, I personally feel that lifemating should not be a roleplay-required status achievement, but rather that roleplay goes towards breeding perks or simple enjoyment and lifemating be something we decide to do or don't do on our own.
This is my opinion on the breeding side of lifemating, which strays a little off topic so I stuck it in a spoiler to make it an optional read.
Demon mentioned that just allowing lifemating would result in people tossing together pretty couples just because they look good and would make cute babies. I'm going to speak bluntly and say we already do that most of the time. We crack foxes together simply because they look good. We pick and choose a lot about who we accept for mate plots because colorists are more likely to pick a couple whose spawn would be fun to color over those they feel iffy over. We love our breedings and we want sexy kiddos! So let's face it, even if we try to make sure there's a decent personality match-up we're already a little snobby about looks. This is my opinion and I'm not trying to offend anyone, but to those people who think "That's not true!" let me just say I can recall a number of times where I've been turned down because the other owner felt my fox's colors/patterns just clashed with their fox.
Scrapping roleplay requirements for lifemate status to me doesn't seem like it would impact breeding numbers as they currently stand. A lot of people forego the extra one or two kiddos because they don't have that second roleplay in them, and are fine with a moderate level of kids. I don't know if it's a rule here, but in TLN once you declare your fox lifemated they cannot breed with anyone but their lifemate; dissolving the lifemating means the fox cannot breed for the next six months. Installing a similar rule would keep people from casually lifemating foxes for extra babies then going around and cracking their fox for pretties on the side, as well keep us from abusing the ability to just declare a lifemating so we don't lifemate for more babies and then turn around and break the lifemating to do a crack.
jinxgirl5
Alien Loiterer
Offline
NymiiNym
Shy Wife
Offline
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:15 pm
Yes, I agree with Jinx.
We all have different ways of RPing couples. I know that I way prefer my way, which is not only Skype but a completely different take on RPing in general. Jinx and I rely on it most of the time because guild RP just does not and never will satisfy the needs of certain couples. Some meetings may be shorter and multiple short series in them, and having a set limit on words or pages just does not work for us. This has stopped us from being able to mate some of our foxes recently, mostly because not only do we need to be on at the same time to even RP, but we just cannot handle guild RP for these couples.
And the appearance thing Demon mentioned. Yes, maybe some will start throwing couples together that look good, but is that a responsibility of a colorist/staff to prevent? Some people ONLY care about babies, and what's wrong with that? This shop won't be used the same by everyone. And Jinx has pointed out one fact I was thinking on. Most of us already put together couples that look good. Many times I know I myself have refused a pairing because they clash, or would make horrible children, and I've noticed I'm not the only one to do it. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's already something we do.
I honestly prefer the idea of no requirements for lifemating. It makes the shop seem less... strict? It invites those who just do not RP much or even WANT to RP, but the perk that RPing could provide extra babies would entice the ones who like RPing.
I don't know, honestly. I just noticed several people I tried to bring into this shop recoil when they notice the required RP for breeding, and it's a shame. It'd be awesome if the shop was more open to the different types of RPers and shop-goers.
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:42 pm
Something I would also like to add that I know doesnt get thought about. Our dear Wolfey_Fireborn can not type he is in a wheelchair and has to voice command his computer to move his mouse and type and everything. I've listened to him do this and his computer fights him a lot so the 6 pages of rp would be pretty killer on him. And i know some day to day things and names his computer fights him and is an extreme pain. Which could be why he doesnt rp big long things. So I hope that this gets taken into consideration.
Lisa, thank you for that post. I also was thinking about this.
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:17 pm
Hey guys, I see there's been a lot of discussing going on in here. There are some valid points being brought up that we are definitely going to be really discussing in the next staff meeting, but I DO see merit in your ideas.
Though, I do see the need for some "proof" of lifemating RP. Wait, now hear me out please. The need for this is actually covered in Elder Permission RP, for foxes who are part of tribes, or a tribeless + Tribe, or two different tribes coming together, yes? In these scenarios, getting the permission of a fox's tribe Elder would be proof that they are serious about mating with the fox they're getting permission for, right? "Proof" and "Elder Permission" could very well be consolidated into the same thing. Yes, yes, it does mean that tribe foxes need that RP still added on to breeding forms whether it's an RP'd couple or not, but truthfully, why would a fox join a tribe without being RP'd into the tribe in the first place? [hopefully, at least]
Spazzy did already mention it and yes, we have been in deep discussion about changing everything to be Word Count based rather than Page Count, because it is just easier. A quick Google search can bring up any number of sites that can give a word count for whoever is checking entries, or keeping track of RPs, so it's no less difficult. it adds one or two more steps into the process but that's not all that hard.
We will be sure to let everyone know when we have come to the full, official agreement on this [and other!] matters.
Reply
